Alexander v. Street et al

Filing 3

ORDER: action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; denying as moot #2 Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs; and the Clerk of Court shall place Alexander on the District's restricted-filer list. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan on 5/10/2024. (LIA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jomari E. Alexander, Sr.,

Case No. 24-CV-1489 (JMB/ECW)

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Dyanna Street, Kevin Shoeberg, and
Samuel Striker,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jomari E. Alexander, Sr.’s Complaint
(Doc. No. 1) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP Application). (Doc. No. 2.)
For the following reasons, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In 2019, Alexander sued Samuel Striker, a landlord, in Minnesota state district
court. (See Register of Actions, Alexander v. Striker, No. 02-CV-19-6626 (Minn. Dist.
Ct.). 1) On April 23, 2024, Alexander filed the instant action alleging that Striker, Striker’s
attorney, and the judge presiding over the 2019 state-court case committed the following
violations:
Civil Rights Violations that include, Defamation, Perjury,
False Crimes, Gun Weaponed Confrontation and Courtroom
Theft from a Prejudice and Biased Judge who repeatedly broke
the law to help herself, the Lawyer and the Landlord in Racist

The Court takes judicial notice of public records, including certain state-court records.
See, e.g., Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005).

1

ways of accepting the crimes she and the lawyer accused me of
these crimes inside the Courthouse building and crimes outside
the Courthouse building that I’m charged with a Felony right
now.
(Doc. No. 1 at 3.)
As Alexander has previously been informed, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Cf. Hart v. United States,
630 F.3d 1085, 1089 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court can address subject-matter
jurisdiction on its own). It is thus Alexander’s responsibility to make allegations sufficient
to establish the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over his case. See, e.g., Kokkonen, 511
U.S. at 377. Upon review of the Complaint, the Court concludes that the allegations do
not implicate federal law. For instance, defamation, assault, and theft are causes of action
that arise under state law. Likewise, Alexander’s general references to unspecified “civil
rights” in the Complaint do not, without more, establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Court dismisses this action and denies the IFP Application as moot.
The Court also observes that Alexander has filed seven cases within the previous
two months in this District. Moreover, in one of his most recent complaints, he indicates
that more lawsuits are forthcoming. (See, e.g., Compl. at 14, Alexander v. Alexander, No.
24-CV-1503 (NEB/DLM) (D. Minn. Apr. 24, 2024).) The Court has repeatedly explained
that Alexander must establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction for actions he files in
federal court. (See Order at 2–3, Alexander v. Alexander, No. 24-CV-1228 (ECT/JFD) (D.
Minn. Apr. 18, 2024) (dismissing action); Order at 3–4, Alexander v. Nelson, No. 24-CV2

1229 (PAM/DLM) (D. Minn. Apr. 17, 2024) (same); Order at 2–3, Alexander v. All Hopes
Inc. et al, No. 24-CV-907 (ECT/JFD) (D. Minn. Mar. 14, 2024) (same).) The Court has
even gone so far as to warn Alexander that, if he continues to “fil[e] suits hastily, without
taking due account of whether they are justified and appropriate,” he may face a filing
restriction. Order at 2–3, No. 24-CV-1228 (ECT/JFD) (D. Minn. Apr. 18, 2024). Despite
this warning, Alexander has filed two more suits, including this one, and as noted above,
indicated an intent to file additional lawsuits.

Therefore, the Court places a filing

restriction on Alexander. The requirements below will prevent Alexander from abusing
the judicial process while also preserving his court access for nonfrivolous litigation.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

2.

Alexander’s IFP Application (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.

3.

The Clerk of Court shall place Alexander on the District’s restricted-filer list.

4.

Alexander shall be prohibited from filing any new cases in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota unless he (1) first obtains prior approval
from a District Judge or Magistrate Judge, or (2) is represented by counsel.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
/s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan ____
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan
United States District Court

Dated: May 10, 2024

3